I never INTENDED to hurt anyone.

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 100
#31
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I've known enough people to realize that you cannot predict what someone consciously intends to do.

I agree --intentions cannot be quantised--   and hat is partly what the role of psyhcology exists for, to know what peoples intentions were in the past and in predict their intentions in future.

However brain research has led to many new results in what parts of brain active of inactive for differrent kind of incoming information or emotions people of experiencing
Topic's author
#32
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
For example, everyone seems to think they know exactly why I ask the questions that I tend to ask, and most of those "reasons" involve them projecting some level of "insincerity" onto my conscious intentions.

Which can be an amazing strategy, because any protest I might offer magically becomes further "evidence" that can be used to confirm their original suspicion.
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So your counter argument is.... sometimes it is possible that your deduction of their intentions can be wrong? That is.... not a good counter argument to say the least. That is true of anything, as RR said. Please sustain something substantial.
#34
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,897
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, everyone seems to think they know exactly why I ask the questions that I tend to ask, and most of those "reasons" involve them projecting some level of "insincerity" onto my conscious intentions.

Which can be an amazing strategy, because any protest I might offer magically becomes further "evidence" that can be used to confirm their original suspicion.
I  agree with your above and understand it is lose/ose for any person in that situation. 

Then there are intentions laid out clearly from in front and the results are not what is intended.  That is differrent situation.
#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you trolling? This video is a literal parody of your argument.
Topic's author
#36
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Are you trolling? This video is a literal parody of your argument.
This is a perfect example.

You believe it is ridiculous and I believe it is profound.

Just because someone sleeps with you doesn't mean they like you.

Most people are projecting on you and think you remind them of someone else or they think you're something you're not.

It's almost never "really" about "you".
Topic's author
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
So your counter argument is.... sometimes it is possible that your deduction of their intentions can be wrong? That is.... not a good counter argument to say the least. That is true of anything, as RR said. Please sustain something substantial.
You might think that you can accurately predict someone else's intentions most of the time (it's called the fundamental attribution error).

But let me ask you,

When other people tell YOU what YOU are thinking, HOW ACCURATE ARE THEY GENERALLY?
#38
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
It was just an example.

The greater point is that you are once again appealing to a standard of absolute certainty. Just because you cannot be absolutely certain doesn’t mean that you cannot be reasonably certain.

Do you believe that people normally act out their intentions?
Topic's author
#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.
But let me ask you,

When other people tell YOU what YOU are thinking, HOW ACCURATE ARE THEY GENERALLY?
Topic's author
#41
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe that people normally act out their intentions?
I believe most people intend to act out their intentions.

I believe most people intent to make themselves happy and comfortable and also intend to avoid discomfort and embarrassment.

In your personal opinion, what percentage of the human population has managed to manifest their conscious intention to be happy and comfortable?
Topic's author
#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you talking about sterotypes? Or first impressions, those are made with incomplete information, and often with unsound logic. You are claiming that it is impossible to do or not at all probable, with a preponderance of information and sound logic it is perfectly possible.
Perhaps you're lucky enough to have a very close friend or family member who can read your intentions like a book.

How accurately do you think a Prosecutor will read your intentions?

How accurately do you think someone who has never met you and doesn't give a shit about you will read your intentions?

How accurately do you think someone who is professionally incentivized to boost their conviction rate as high as possible, how accurately are they going to read YOUR intentions?
#43
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Umm... what I think? Or my intentions for a specific action? Those are two very different things
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You are making deliberately obstuse claims, did or did you not read my post above, you know, IF you have complete information, and are using sound logic, using anecdotal examples is not proper 
Topic's author
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Umm... what I think? Or my intentions for a specific action? Those are two very different things
THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.
Topic's author
#46
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are making deliberately obstuse claims, did or did you not read my post above, you know, IF you have complete information, and are using sound logic, using anecdotal examples is not proper 
THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR.
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
No... they aren't. 
My intentions behind a specific action - something which already happened, and one thought - in contrast, what I'm thinking, is ongoing and changing. You can observe my behavior in the past, before and after the action, you cannot do the same about what I am thinking as I do it. Please stop with these false equivalences. 
#48
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations.
That is using unsound logic, were or were you not reading my posts?

#49
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe most people intend to act out their intentions.
Correction: *all* people intend to act out their intentions. That follows from the definition of intend.

It’s like you are trying so hard to deny the ability to tell someone’s intent that you are willing to deny a tautology.

In your personal opinion, what percentage of the human population has managed to manifest their conscious intention to be happy and comfortable?
This isn’t relevant. You’re talking about achieving the desired results, not acting upon their intentions.
#50
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING.
Let’s try something simpler. If I order a pizza, and then when the pizza came I ate it, could you say with reasonable confidence that my intention for calling the pizzeria was to eat pizza for dinner?
Topic's author
#51
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... they aren't. 
My intentions behind a specific action - something which already happened, and one thought - in contrast, what I'm thinking, is ongoing and changing. You can observe my behavior in the past, before and after the action, you cannot do the same about what I am thinking as I do it. Please stop with these false equivalences. 
YOUR CONSCIOUS INTENTION = THOUGHT

THOUGHT = WHAT YOU'RE THINKING
Topic's author
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations.
That is using unsound logic, were or were you not reading my posts?
I agree that using the fundamental attribution error is unsound logic.

HOWEVER, the fundamental attribution error is a fact of the human condition.

We know our individual selves better and we are generally more forgiving of our individual selves.

We know our friends and family better than strangers and we are generally more forgiving of our friends and family.

We know strangers less and are generally less forgiving of strangers.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE JUDGE THE INTENTIONS OF STRANGERS MUCH MORE HARSHLY THAN WE JUDGE OUR OWN INTENTIONS AND WE JUDGE THE INTENTIONS OF OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.
#53
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Which is a logical fallacy and falls outside of the conditions we were discussing. Humans can act without flaws in logic whenever they are aware of it, judges do it constantly.
Topic's author
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I believe most people intend to act out their intentions.
Correction: *all* people intend to act out their intentions. That follows from the definition of intend.
Correction: *not all* people have achieved coherent alignment between their conscious and subconscious intentions.
Topic's author
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
In your personal opinion, what percentage of the human population has managed to manifest their conscious intention to be happy and comfortable?
This isn’t relevant. You’re talking about achieving the desired results, not acting upon their intentions.
YOUR (apparent) GOAL IS TO JUSTIFY PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR THEIR ACTIONS THAT RESULTED FROM THEIR INTENTIONS.

YOUR (apparent)  ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU CAN KNOW (with high confidence) SOMEONE'S INTENTIONS BY THEIR ACTIONS.

THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO MANIFEST THEIR INTENDED OUTCOMES CLEARLY CONTRADICTS BOTH OF THESE PREMISES.

in other words, would it be fair to throw someone in prison for THINKING ABOUT killing their boss even if they NEVER acted on those thoughts (intentions)?

in other words, (IFF) thinking about something IS NEVER A CRIME (THEN) the ACTION itself and the ACTION alone is the actual crime.

Think about it this way.

Person (A) robs a bank.

Person (A) spends months planning how to get into the bank and every detail of how they might maximize their risk reward ratio.

Person (B) robs a bank.

Person (B) is having a particularly bad day and just happens to notice the armed security guard is asleep so they grab the gun and threaten the cashier with the loaded weapon.

(1) which of these hypothetical crimes is more of a danger to the public?

(2) which of these hypothetical criminals should be given a longer prison sentence?

(3) are we really trying to punish people for thinking ahead and NOT being impulsive?

(4) are we really trying to reward people for NOT thinking ahead and being impulsive?
Topic's author
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Which is a logical fallacy and falls outside of the conditions we were discussing. Humans can act without flaws in logic whenever they are aware of it, judges do it constantly.
NO HUMAN IS FREE OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers [**]
#57
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course they aren't, but it is mitigatable beyond impact. 
Topic's author
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course they aren't, but it is mitigatable beyond impact. 
IMPOSSIBLE.

You can't mitigate what you can't predict or quantify.
Topic's author
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
#60
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Um... yes, yes you can - and yes, yes you can predict bias. You can, in fact, here's an entire paper over the concept:

Reliable computer-based tests have been developed tomeasure implicit and unconscious bias. The most commonly used is the IAT, which measures differential association of two target concepts—male or female, black orwhite, good or bad—and relies on differences in responselatency to reveal unconscious bias. The larger the performance difference, the stronger the unconscious bias.Between 1998 and 2006, more than 4.5 million IAT testswere completed on the IAT website. The project foundthat:• Implicit bias is pervasive.• People are often unaware of their implicit biases.• Implicit biases predict behavior.• People differ in levels of implicit bias.21The IAT is a powerful and useful instrument to exploreand document the impact of bias on behavior. It can beused to increase awareness of cognitive bias, and helpindividuals and groups to compensate and learn about influences on decision-making and social interactions. TheIAT is available online at implicit.harvard.edu. It is freeand takes about 10 minutes to complete a test.
Not to mention deduction and induction, you empirically do not know what you are talking about